Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2017

01-08-2017 | Editorial

While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated

Authors: Eleonor Svantesson, Eric Hamrin Senorski, Kurt P. Spindler, Olufemi R. Ayeni, Freddie H. Fu, Jón Karlsson, Kristian Samuelsson

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 8/2017

Login to get access

Excerpt

In just a few decades, the scientific stage has undergone some dramatic changes. Novel studies are produced at a “faster than ever” pace, and technological advances enable insights into areas that would previously have been referred to as science fiction. However, the purpose of research will always be the same—to serve as a firm foundation to practise evidence-based medicine and ultimately improve the treatment of our patients. Is the explosive evolvement of research publications and technological advances always beneficial when it comes to fulfilling this purpose? As we are served with a steady stream of new “significant” findings, it is more important than ever critically to evaluate the evidence that is presented and be aware of the limitations and pitfalls that we encounter every day as modern scientists and clinicians.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Albert RK (2013) “Lies, damned lies…” and observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187(11):1173–1177CrossRefPubMed Albert RK (2013) “Lies, damned lies…” and observational studies in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 187(11):1173–1177CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference An VV, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Hadden W, Parker D (2016) Limitations in predicting outcome following primary ACL reconstruction with single-bundle hamstring autograft—A systematic review. Knee 24(2):170–178CrossRefPubMed An VV, Scholes C, Mhaskar VA, Hadden W, Parker D (2016) Limitations in predicting outcome following primary ACL reconstruction with single-bundle hamstring autograft—A systematic review. Knee 24(2):170–178CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L (2014) Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Mr000034 Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L (2014) Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Mr000034
4.
go back to reference Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342(25):1878–1886CrossRefPubMed Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342(25):1878–1886CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Carter RE, McKie PM, Storlie CB (2017) The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep’s clothing? Eur Heart J 38(5):346–348PubMed Carter RE, McKie PM, Storlie CB (2017) The Fragility Index: a P-value in sheep’s clothing? Eur Heart J 38(5):346–348PubMed
6.
8.
go back to reference Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25):1887–1892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25):1887–1892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546CrossRefPubMed Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7(5):541–546CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Fisher R (1973) Statistical methods and scientific inference, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, New York Fisher R (1973) Statistical methods and scientific inference, 3rd edn. Hafner Publishing Company, New York
11.
12.
go back to reference Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR (2000) Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 132(9):715–722CrossRefPubMed Greene WL, Concato J, Feinstein AR (2000) Claims of equivalence in medical research: are they supported by the evidence? Ann Intern Med 132(9):715–722CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Dillon MT (2016) Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: a comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):e3CrossRefPubMed Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Dillon MT (2016) Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: a comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):e3CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Ioannidis JA (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294(2):218–228CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JA (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294(2):218–228CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286(7):821–830CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP, Haidich AB, Pappa M, Pantazis N, Kokori SI, Tektonidou MG, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Lau J (2001) Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies. JAMA 286(7):821–830CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Khan M, Evaniew N, Gichuru M, Habib A, Ayeni OR, Bedi A, Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M (2016) The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in sports surgery. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.1177/0363546516674469 PubMed Khan M, Evaniew N, Gichuru M, Habib A, Ayeni OR, Bedi A, Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Bhandari M (2016) The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in sports surgery. Am J Sports Med. doi:10.​1177/​0363546516674469​ PubMed
18.
go back to reference Lowe WR (2016) Editorial Commentary: “There, It Fits!”—Justifying Nonsignificant P Values. Arthroscopy 32(11):2318–2321CrossRefPubMed Lowe WR (2016) Editorial Commentary: “There, It Fits!”—Justifying Nonsignificant P Values. Arthroscopy 32(11):2318–2321CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Mark DB, Lee KL, Harrell FE Jr (2016) Understanding the role of P values and hypothesis tests in clinical research. JAMA Cardiol 1(9):1048–1054CrossRefPubMed Mark DB, Lee KL, Harrell FE Jr (2016) Understanding the role of P values and hypothesis tests in clinical research. JAMA Cardiol 1(9):1048–1054CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15):1636–1640CrossRef Methodology Committee of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) (2012) Methodological standards and patient-centeredness in comparative effectiveness research: the PCORI perspective. JAMA 307(15):1636–1640CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Nuzzo R (2014) Statistical errors—P values, the ‘golden standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 508:150–152CrossRef Nuzzo R (2014) Statistical errors—P values, the ‘golden standard’ of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. Nature 508:150–152CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Salsburg D (2002) The lady tasting tea, 31728th edn. Holt Paperbacks, New York Salsburg D (2002) The lady tasting tea, 31728th edn. Holt Paperbacks, New York
24.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef
Metadata
Title
While modern medicine evolves continuously, evidence-based research methodology remains: how register studies should be interpreted and appreciated
Authors
Eleonor Svantesson
Eric Hamrin Senorski
Kurt P. Spindler
Olufemi R. Ayeni
Freddie H. Fu
Jón Karlsson
Kristian Samuelsson
Publication date
01-08-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 8/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4582-y

Other articles of this Issue 8/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 8/2017 Go to the issue